THOUGHT 1: In a previous incarnation (when I was a clergyman), one of my duties was to speak to the congregation: a sermon. I had to think about the relationship of the spoken to the written word. I did not wing my sermons: I prepared them carefully. Somewhere, I have a boxful of sermon manuscripts.
We speak casually, incompletely, slangily. I have, a couple of times, transcribed precisely what someone said into manuscript form. It is almost hilarious: a sloppy porridge of uhs, ahs, incomplete phrases, unfinished sentences, endless sentences, bad grammar and syntax, you knows, and other state-of-the-art jargon.
On the other hand, sometimes when we write, we torture our readers with silly formal styles, and use words we never say in articulate conversation.
I consciously tried to keep both oral and written habits in mind, not to deny either of them, but to allow me to say what I had written in such a way that maintained the integrity of each.
THOUGHT 2: Public radio has been examining our educational system. Students, it is said, are not taught to think critically, and cannot write. If that is the case, it seems to me, then they cannot speak well, either. How can one be well-spoken, but not think critically, distinguishing sense from nonsense?
THOUGHT 3: Writing has an intimate relationship to speaking. There is a one-to-one relationship between speaking and writing; not that we write exactly as we speak, but that good writing enables one to recreate what a person says. Writing takes speach and maintains it beyond the immediate time and place where the ideas were first said. Music evokes feelings, and prompts ideas, but it is not a one-to-one relationship. Neither are the visual arts. Words are much more specific.
THOUGHT 4: A good educational system, like a good conversation, and like a good written article, ought to maintain a close, although not an exact, relationship between speaking and writing. Inarticulate speech is, at the same time, inarticulate thought, which might just be a way of saying that inarticulate speech is uncritical thought, not having done its logical homework. Good writing has the function of requiring care for ideas, but care for ideas should also support our spoken language.
A student who can get into college without being able to write, probably cannot speak very well, either, if speaking well also means showing critical thought. And if writing has to be taught in college, it should be taught to be as clear, immediate, and direct as a good conversation. It cannot be simply a transcript of how we speak sloppily, not should it be strained, stilted, and stiff-kneed.
We speak casually, incompletely, slangily. I have, a couple of times, transcribed precisely what someone said into manuscript form. It is almost hilarious: a sloppy porridge of uhs, ahs, incomplete phrases, unfinished sentences, endless sentences, bad grammar and syntax, you knows, and other state-of-the-art jargon.
On the other hand, sometimes when we write, we torture our readers with silly formal styles, and use words we never say in articulate conversation.
I consciously tried to keep both oral and written habits in mind, not to deny either of them, but to allow me to say what I had written in such a way that maintained the integrity of each.
THOUGHT 2: Public radio has been examining our educational system. Students, it is said, are not taught to think critically, and cannot write. If that is the case, it seems to me, then they cannot speak well, either. How can one be well-spoken, but not think critically, distinguishing sense from nonsense?
THOUGHT 3: Writing has an intimate relationship to speaking. There is a one-to-one relationship between speaking and writing; not that we write exactly as we speak, but that good writing enables one to recreate what a person says. Writing takes speach and maintains it beyond the immediate time and place where the ideas were first said. Music evokes feelings, and prompts ideas, but it is not a one-to-one relationship. Neither are the visual arts. Words are much more specific.
THOUGHT 4: A good educational system, like a good conversation, and like a good written article, ought to maintain a close, although not an exact, relationship between speaking and writing. Inarticulate speech is, at the same time, inarticulate thought, which might just be a way of saying that inarticulate speech is uncritical thought, not having done its logical homework. Good writing has the function of requiring care for ideas, but care for ideas should also support our spoken language.
A student who can get into college without being able to write, probably cannot speak very well, either, if speaking well also means showing critical thought. And if writing has to be taught in college, it should be taught to be as clear, immediate, and direct as a good conversation. It cannot be simply a transcript of how we speak sloppily, not should it be strained, stilted, and stiff-kneed.
.
Comments
Post a Comment